You can check my equation at post #78. That is a generalised equation. If we use that equation for electron, then \(\frac{r_e \pi}{2}=\frac{h}{m_ec} \) or \(r_e=\frac{h}{m_ec}\frac{2}{\pi}=4(\frac{\hbar}{m_ec} ) \).

So, my value is approx \(4 \) times, what your paper is claiming. I dont think, it is a big anomaly.

You can check my equation at post #78. That is a generalised equation. If we use that equation for electron, then \(\frac{r_e \pi}{2}=\frac{h}{m_ec} \) or \(r_e=\frac{h}{m_ec}\frac{2}{\pi}=4(\frac{\hbar}{m_ec} ) \).

So, my value is approx \(4 \) times, what your paper is claiming. I dont think, it is a big anomaly.

Click to expand...

Can you provide the error margins on your calculation, so that we can actually check whether the two are compatible? You know, basic statistics.

Additionally, there's the issue that we've also got an upper limit of \(10^{-22} m\). Do you think multiple orders of magnitude is also not "a big anomaly"?

If my value is big anomaly, your paper's value also will be in the similar range.

Click to expand...

Sure, but you'll note that the paper explicitly mentions that it's doing that calculation in the context of a non-pointlike coupling. In other words, they assumed the electron has a non-zero radius for the sake of the calculation. There is thus one possibility left to have all this experimental data be consistent: the electron has zero radius.

Sure, but you'll note that the paper explicitly mentions that it's doing that calculation in the context of a non-pointlike coupling. In other words, they assumed the electron has a non-zero radius for the sake of the calculation. There is thus one possibility left to have all this experimental data be consistent: the electron has zero radius.

Setting an upper limit on an electron size does not imply it has a non-zero size!

What we're doing here is testing by experiment what our theories tell us.

1. Our theories say an electron should have a zero radius.
2. We do an experiment to test for a radius of r. It passes that test.
3. We develop a more advanced experiment to test for a radius of s. It passes that test too.

If it ever fails one of these tests, our theory is busted.

There is no implication that it is of size t, simply that we cannot say for certain (without actually doing the experiment) that it is t or less.

Eventually, we will devise a better experiment that the electron will fail if it is larger than u.

We may never have a test that tests for a minimum size of zero. (because how would you test that experimentally?)

Please stop being intellectually dishonest. You've just said that you can't compare these two values for compatibility, and that doing so isn't important. Yet one (!) single sentence further, you are doing just that.

Setting an upper limit on an electron size does not imply it has a non-zero size!

What we're doing here is testing by experiment what our theories tell us.

1. Our theories say an electron should have a zero radius.
2. We do an experiment to test for a radius of x. It passes that test.
3. We do another experiment to test for a radius of y. It passes that test too.

It's not important to know whether your value is compatible which this one?

Please stop being intellectually dishonest. You've just said that you can't compare these two values for compatibility, and that doing so isn't important. Yet one (!) single sentence further, you are doing just that.

Yes, which is why it's doubly important to get the error margins.

Let me phrase it in simple terms. Let's say we have the following two statements:
A < 10
If A is not zero, then A = 20.

What is the value of A?
If both statements are correct: A = 0
If only one statement is correct: A < 10 or A = 20
If no statement is correct: A = ?

Please point me to the section in that paper where it states that the electron radius is non-zero. Remember, \(A<10\) doesn't imply \(A\neq 0\).

Click to expand...

Unnecessarily you are complicating this. Earlier we have seen minimum radius. So electron radius can not be less than that.